The influence of a secondary task on forward blocking of human contingency ratings was examined. A smaller blocking effect was found when participants performed a highly demanding secondary task than when they performed a less demanding secondary task. The modulatory effect of secondary task difficulty was significant only when the secondary task was administered during both the learning and the test phase of the contingency judgement task. The results suggest that forward blocking in human contingency learning cannot be fully accounted for by associative processes. Instead, forward blocking seems to depend at least partially on deliberate deductive reasoning processes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BraineM. D. S.(1990). The “natural logic” approach to reasoning. In OvertonW. F. (Ed.), Reasoning, necessity, and logic: Developmental perspectives (pp. 133–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
2.
ChengP. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review,104, 367–405.
3.
ChengP. W., & HolyoakK. J. (1995). Complex adaptive systems as intuitive statisticians: Causality, contingency, and prediction. In MeyerJ.-A. & RoitblatH. (Eds.), Comparative approaches to cognition (pp. 271–302). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
DawsonM. E., & ShellA. M.(1987). Human autonomic and skeletalclassical conditioning: The role of conscious factors. In DaveyG. (Ed.), Cognitive processes and Pavlovian conditioning in humans (pp. 27–57). New York: Wiley.
5.
De HouwerJ. (2002). Forward blocking depends on retrospective inferences about the presence of the blocked cue during the elemental phase. Memory & Cognition,30, 24–33.
6.
De HouwerJ., & BeckersT. (2002). A review of recent developments in research and theory on human contingency learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55B, 289–310.
7.
De HouwerJ., BeckersT., & GlautierS. (2002). Outcome and cue properties modulate blocking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 965–985.
8.
DickinsonA. (2001). The 28th Bartlett memorial lecture: Causal learning: An associative analysis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54B, 3–25.
9.
DickinsonA., & BurkeJ. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49B, 60–80.
10.
DickinsonA.ShanksD., & EvendenJ. (1984). Judgement of act-outcome contingency: The role of selective attribution. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 29–50.
11.
EvansJ. St. B. T., & OverD. E. (1996). Rationality and reasoning. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
12.
Johnson-LairdP. N., & ByrneM. J. (1991). Deduction. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
13.
LovibondP. F., BeenS.-L.MitchellC. J., BoutonM. E., & FrohardtR. (2002). Forward and backward blocking of causal judgement is enhanced by additivity of effect magnitude. Manuscript submitted for publication.
14.
MackintoshN. J. (1995). Categorization by people and pigeons: The twenty-second Bartlett memorial lecture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48B, 193–214.
15.
McLarenI.P.L.GreenR.E.A., & MackintoshN.J. (1994). Animal learning and the implicit/explicit distinction. In EllisN. C. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 313–332). New York: Academic Press.
16.
RescorlaR. A., & WagnerA. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In BlackA. H. & ProkasyW. F. (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton.
17.
ShanksD. R., & DarbyR.J. (1998). Feature- and rule-based generalization in human associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,24, 405–415.
18.
SlomanS. A. (1996). The empirical case of two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin,119, 3–22.
19.
SzmalecA.VandierendonckA., & KempsE. (2002). Response-selection as a component of executive processing. Manuscript in preparation.
20.
WagnerA. R. (1981). SOP. A model of automatic memory processing in animal behaviour. In SpearN. E. & MillerR. R. (Eds.), Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms (pp. 5–47). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
21.
WaldmannM. R. (2000). Competition among causes but not effects in predictive and diagnostic learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 53–76.
22.
WaldmannM.R., & HagmayerY. (2001). Estimating causal strength: The role of structural knowledge and processing effort. Cognition,82, 27–58.
23.
WaldmannM. R., & HolyoakK.J. (1992). Predictive and diagnostic learning within causal models: Asymmetries in cue competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,121, 22–236.
